PROBLEM: TEXT MESSAGE THROUGHPUT
Try This:
Avoid spam filters by whitelisting:
Campuses or their mass notification vendors should work with cell carriers and aggregators so their messages aren’t blocked by cell carrier spam filters. “A lot of times, it just takes a letter to the cell carrier saying, ‘This is an emergency notification system we’re using. If you get E-mails or text messages from [email protected], it’s not spam,’” says Brenden McCluskey the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey’s executive director of the office of emergency management and occupational health and safety.
For those institutions using third-party vendors, Dave Bujak, FSU’s emergency management coordinator recommends they be thoroughly vetted. “Ask them, ‘What arrangements have you made with everyone down the line to ensure messages are not filtered, delayed or spammed?’” he says. “What I’ve found is that the vendors that are more aggressive, well established and have relationships with aggregators and carriers have better service. If it’s an up-start or fly-by-night company, they probably don’t have all of those arrangements in place.”
Additionally, the campus must inform message recipients to set their spam filters so they won’t reject emergency messages.
Create smaller groups:
It is often helpful for campuses to break up the message recipient list into smaller groups and send messages only to those individuals affected by the crisis. Cutting the number of messages being sent generally increases throughput speed.
For example, Miami Dade College has 66,000 students and employees, not including students taking non-credit classes. Because the college has eight campuses, it makes sense for message recipients to be categorized according to campus location. That way, a message can be delivered only to students and staff located on the campus in harm’s way. The system isn’t bogged down by messages going to users who are not in affected areas.
Beware of inexpensive solutions:
Mass notification systems that use short codes (SMPP) as opposed to E-mail-based messages (SMTP) generally are better at avoiding cell carrier spam filters. The catch? SMPP is much more expensive, while SMTP is generally free.
Not all vendors, however, agree that this should be the only method of text message delivery. “That pathway has some value, but we haven’t found it to be ideal,” says Tiene. “We recommend the use of a combination of pathways. Different pathways work better for different carriers.”
Some campus officials believe that even this approach could be improved. Lucus, for example, would like to have a system that can broadcast a message from one tower to all of the cell phones within range of it. Right now, text systems communicate on a one-to-one basis, which causes congestion.
McCluskey would like to adopt a system like the Wireless Priority Service (WPS) used by traditional emergency responders. “We could have a similar system for emergency text messages that gives you a special code embedded in the message that tells the cell phone companies this is an emergency message and it needs to take priority.”
More Info on CS‘s Mass Notification Microsite
These are just some of the challenges and solutions discussed in this year’s survey. Complete study results can be found here. Visit www.campussafetymagazine.com/MassNotification for helpful links, breaking news, sample emergency messages, best practices, case studies and an updated overview of the emergency notification solutions available on the market today.
To view Part 2 of this article, click here.
